Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Who Should Provide Service ?

22nd February 1952
Page 32
Page 32, 22nd February 1952 — Who Should Provide Service ?
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

A DUAL -appeal by Venture. Trans .port (Newcastle), Ltd., against It decision of the Northern Licensing Authority has, been dismissed with costs.' The grounds were that the Authority granted Northern General Transport Co., Ltd., a licence for a. stage service from Durham to Chopwell which crossed routes served by Venture vehicles, and that an application for a stage-carriage licence. for the High Spen-Stanley route had been restricted to a High Spen-Elm Park service; although local authorities had suppor

ted the application. • Mr. T. Campbell Wardlaw, for Venture Transport, said that Northern General had produced no evidence of need for the Chopwell service. It had been admitted that there would be abstraction of traffic on this route, and the application should not have been granted.

As regards the second part of the appeal, the Licensing Authority has been wrong to grant part of the application and then invite Northern General to apply for the rest. If an applicant proved a need it was not the duty of the Licensing Authority to ask another operator to meet it.

In his observations, the Minister's inspector held that there was -evidence of public need lot a Durham-Chopwell

through service. The Authority was not wrong in granting Northern General the licence, although the new service might prejudice the appellant's service. On the second part of the appeal, there was evidence to show that Venture should not run beyond Elm Park into what. was Northern General territory.


THE case of Seamarks Bros., Ltd., 1. Westoning, Beds, in an appeal against a decision of the Eastern Licensing Authority, was that a feeder service granted in place of an additional excursion could not be justified by the seats available on the basic service. The appeal was' dismissed with costs. as recommended by the Ministry of Transport inspector, who held that if seats were not available for passengers using the feeder service, extra vehicles could have been used, if application had been made to increase the vehicle allowance.

The appellant had applied for an additional excursion from Westoning to London, and had been granted a feeder service for a Luton-Wembley excursion. The feeder would depend on the vacant seats on the Wembley excursion. The maximum number of vehicles was used on this run on 16 occasions.


A NEW company, Helecs Vehicles, Ltd„ has been formed to market Helecs products and appoint distributors and agents. It takes over these commitments from Hindle, Smart and Co., Ltd., Ardwick, Manchester, 12.

comments powered by Disqus